Firearms — constitutionality

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Firearms — constitutionality

18 U.S.C. 924(c), prohibiting possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, is not unconstitutionally vague.

“The appellant contends that the ‘in furtherance of’ nexus between the drugs and the firearm requires a greater level of participation than proving the ‘during and in relation to’ prong. Eller argues that in order to prove the former, the Government must show the gun was more than merely available, that it actually advanced the drug-trafficking operation. Numerous circuits have interpreted the meaning of § 924(c) and determined that its terms are unambiguous and ‘[invite] uniform enforcement.’ These courts have rejected § 924(c) void-for-vagueness challenges. United States v. Hungerford, 465 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Angelos, 433 F.3d 738, 754 (10th Cir. 2006), United States v. Camps, 32 F.3d 102, 109 (4th Cir. 1994)). Additionally, as this Court stated in United States v. Mitten, a possessed gun can forward a drug-trafficking offense by providing the dealer, his stash, or his territory with protection. United States v. Mitten, 592 F.3d 767, 777 (7th Cir. 2010). We also find § 924(c) to be clear and intelligible and we reject the challenge to its validity.”

Affirmed.

10-2465 U.S. v. Eller

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Miller, J., Bauer, J.